|
Random comments:
"I personally would like to see more logic and
triggers, etc in AD as well..."
[Darren] So what you'd really like is SQL Server, which
has all that :-)
"Possibly MS could make it so that SQL backend could be as smooth
to use as ESE is in the backend of AD (how much work have you really had to do
on your ESE Database? How many tools are available to do so? That will give an
indication of how much the tools are needed.)
"
[Darren] I
think that results from the difference between a purpose-built, runtime
database engine that does one thing really well and an
all-purpose, do-anything-you-want, relational database. Once you open up
the possibilities of putting business logic into the db, then
self-maintaining, self-tuning, never--need-to-do-maintenance goes out the
door.
"...if you want to stay in an IT position, I highly recommend becoming
an advanced scripter if not an admin with full blown programming
capability."
[Darren] I
agree with this in general. I actually think that IT systems are going to become
increasingly complex (if that's possible), but at a higher layer than today. I
think that over time, all of the mundane, basic OS-level stuff will just take
care of itself and that the complexity will arise higher up. If you think about
where things are going--virtualized servers that provision on the fly,
service-oriented applications that are "loosely coupled", operating systems and
apps that are much better instrumented, federated identities with users
running apps across org. boundaries--all of this points to a very complex web of
stuff that will require a much higher level of skills to manage. I'm not sure
this translates to "you need to be a scripter" but for me it does translate to
"you need to understand more than OS config. twiddling" and I agree
wholeheartedly that being grounded in app. development capabilities is a huge
advantage for an admin today and, probably in the
future.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list It is suprising no one has responded to this with the
"pat" answer... this is describing MIIS and the workflow piece they
have built into it and the idea being that AD is simply a store. MIIS
supplies the business logic such as triggers and dynamic updates, etc. I don't
necessarily agree with it, but it is what Stuart Kwan (of the Ottawa Kwan Clan)
has been saying at DEC for the last few years. I personally would like to see
more logic and triggers, etc in AD as well as more extensible functionality like
the password filters, etc that are fully supported. I dislike the idea that I
may need to spin up an entirely different product as well as SQL Server to
manage my AD environment. If MIIS started using ESE I would be that much closer
to accepting it because then I don't have a database product that I have to
install and pay special attention to (not to mention buy at some ridiculous
price), it is a back end black box piece. I just was chatting with an MCS guy
who had to work on a MS Product last week that back ended into SQL and they
went to move it and it was a disaster. Possibly MS could make it so that SQL
backend could be as smooth to use as ESE is in the backend of AD (how much work
have you really had to do on your ESE Database? How many tools are available to
do so? That will give an indication of how much the tools are needed.)
but I haven't seen it yet. I recall when MS came to one of my customers to work
on piloting MOM with the SQL backend and what a disaster that was, and in
talking to the MCS guys, it wasn't a one off. More logic has to be in the
application in order to use ESE over SQL, but maybe that is what some of these
apps need, more logic.
As for the advanced scripters part... my 10 or less
year prediction... if you want to stay in an IT position, I highly recommend
becoming an advanced scripter if not an admin with full blown programming
capability. Companies are going to continue slimming down and the technologies
are going to handle more and more of the "simple things" automatically meaning
if you don't have the advanced scripting/architecting/troubleshooting skills,
the chances are not good to remain working on the stuff. You will slowly get
overwhelmed as more stuff gets loaded on to the point that you are no longer
effective without advanced scripting skills and someone who is will remain
when the company decides to save more money and a good chunk of the staff gets
cut. I see the Server Foundation aka Server Core OS pushing this even harder
when companies deploy more and more headless machines with no GUI to speak of. I
have already been seeing this where groups that used to have large numbers of
admins are whittled down to maybe a third of what they had with only the people
with serious automation skills remaining behind. Which is actually a favor for
those that don't have those skills as they would be completely overwhelmed in
short order. I visualize us moving to two extremes for corporate IT Admins, the
people watching colored lights where there is a requirement for an actual person
to be looking at a screen versus depending on automated paging systems, etc
(there are customers that require this) and the high end advanced admins. Small
business shops are where I see most of the other admins going to (if they
stay in admin work) and possibly Susan can speak to where she thinks
scripting and such is going in that world as she has her finger on the pulse of
SBS. SBS can't be run, at this time, on Server Core, it has too much junk in the
trunk so it will continue looking like the servers of today until MS works out
how to make them run on Core and then I visualize one Susan running SBS for many
companies from the comfort of her home with better and better scripts and tools
or some company that specializes in running small businesses like that if they
don't already exist.
Look at this way, companies and admins are all complaining
about how much time they have to spend on stupid things like patching and
clicking on this or that or whatever it is they feel is a waste of time. MS is
listening, MS is reacting, MS is fixing. Us as admins complain because we don't
want to worry about stupid things. Companies complain because they want to
reduce their systems management costs. The more the systems handle themselves,
the less they need admins doing it. Not saying we will ever get to a point where
admins aren't needed, but the number of them will surely reduce drammatically
and only the very useful or the very very cheap will tend to hang around.
Having very strong scripting skills makes someone very useful.
Centralization and work force reduction will continue to be the norm and
in fact will probably accelerate.
joe
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DeStefano, Dan Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 8:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list I would like a better
way of making bulk changes to AD. There seems to be caveats with every scripting
method. Also some more advanced management like maybe a way to create new users
and automatically e-mail their superior based on an attribute in the user
account with the new account information. Maybe there are ways to do these
things via advanced scripting, but I would like an easier way for those of us
admins who are not advanced scripters. Dan From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Rich
Milburn I’m not
saying we need a better solution
here, and there are factors due
to the internal/external nature of our business that PSS (I think) recommended
the design we have. When we
built it, the empty root was widely considered to be the best design. My
point was that to support this, we need at least 6 W2K3 servers running
(physical or not is mostly beside the point). We don’t really need load
balancing for this size – but we need 2 servers for each domain if we want to
avoid the risk of having the only DC for a domain go down. My point was
that the directory is a database, but it’s tied to the server OS in such a way
that even stopping the directory on one box is a feat for MS to do (they’re
working on that, as I think Joe mentioned and is non-NDA). Securing a copy
of the directory and making it available means doing that for the entire server
unit right now, not just the directory – a different database model than say
SQL. Should the AD database be more modular to separate it out from the OS
so that it could be treated as one might treat a SQL database? Maybe
not. I was just asking the question in hopes of sparking some new ideas of
ways to mitigate the risk a single DC domain incurs today. J --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Phil
Renouf My question would be: for a small directory
of 5000 users, why do you have 3 domains? If it is for separate password
policies, then perhaps a better wish list item would be the ability to have
multiple password policies in one domain. Phil On 10/5/05, Rich Milburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: I think the biggest reason people want to
be able to run multiple -------APPLEBEE'S
INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE-------
|
- RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list Darren Mar-Elia
- RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list Rich Milburn
- RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list Ed Crowley [MVP]
- RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list deji
- RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list neil.ruston
- RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory wish list Al Mulnick
